ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Date Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:23:45 GMT
If it is an Ignite release, then it has to pass through the vote. If not,
then you can do the test without publishing or uploading the release.

D.

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:18 PM Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok.
>
> In case of TC questions — ask me.
>
>
>
> > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Petr.
> >
> > I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today.
> > And execute release procedure based on this branch.
> >
> > However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until code freeze date.
> >
> > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет:
> >> Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 branch?
> >>
> >> Fabric removal related TC modifications are not ready yet, and code is
> not in master.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:07, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello, Igniters.
> >>>
> >>> I want to start and release procedures and make an RC1 build.
> >>>
> >>> It has a 2 intention:
> >>>
> >>> 1. I want to walk through all release steps to make sure they all
> works for me.
> >>> So I will be fully ready on release date.
> >>>
> >>> 2. We have updated some dependencies in 2.7 and we need to make sure
> binary build is still workable.
> >>>
> >>> Any objections?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> В Пт, 14/09/2018 в 18:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет:
> >>>> We already have all the mechanics in place to work with properties -
> we use
> >>>> ignite.build and ignite.revision from ignite.properties which are
> adjusted
> >>>> during the build in the binary package.
> >>>>
> >>>> Should I create the ticket if there are no objections?
> >>>>
> >>>> пт, 14 сент. 2018 г. в 13:22, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So now there's an issue that this script makes source change after
> every
> >>>>> build, show up in git status.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What we could do to it:
> >>>>> - Commit the changes after the build, once. In hopes that it won't
> change
> >>>>> very often. With benefit that we could do that right now, before
the
> code
> >>>>> freeze.
> >>>>> - Move these values to a properties file from both pom.xml and
> >>>>> IgniteProvider.java. Any problems with this approach? We'll just
> read them
> >>>>> from classpath properties file.
> >>>>> - Update the links in the file once and remove them from build
> process. Why
> >>>>> were they added to build process in the first place - to make them
> >>>>> configurable during build?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> вт, 11 сент. 2018 г. в 5:53, Roman Shtykh <rshtykh@yahoo.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ilya,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The "latest" version is the default, and resolved by
> >>>>>> https://ignite.apache.org/latest which is used by our web site
> when a
> >>>>>> user download the latest Ignite version. And I think this is
the
> >>>>>
> >>>>> authority
> >>>>>> to judge of the latest official release (pom.xml you suggest
can
> have
> >>>>>> SNAPSHOTs etc.).
> >>>>>> Also, as I explained during our review sessions, ignite-mesos-2.6.0
> is a
> >>>>>> driver and doesn't mean you need to have Ignite 2.6.0. User
can run
> any
> >>>>>> version of Ignite he/she specifies. By default, it's "latest"
but a
> user
> >>>>>> can specify any version needed, even from a non-archive URL.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In short, what we have now
> >>>>>> 1. mesos driver (ignite-mesos-x.x.x) will use "latest" version
by
> default
> >>>>>> -> it will try to resolve the latest officially releases
version of
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Apache
> >>>>>> Ignite, find the closest mirror and download Ignite in a minute.
If
> the
> >>>>>> version resolution fails, we fall back to the slow apache archive
> (as you
> >>>>>> suggest; in my opinion we better fail-fast instead of waiting
for
> hours
> >>>>>
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>> download, so the user can choose another download option (3))
> >>>>>> 2. If the user specifies the version explicitly, it goes to
the slow
> >>>>>> apache archive.
> >>>>>> 3. The user can put ignite zip file on his/her http server and
> provide
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> URL as a parameter to the driver, if options 1 and 2 don't work.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As you see, there are 3 options. And I just fix the 1st one
with
> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9388 and don't
change
> the
> >>>>>> original logic (which I find reasonable) documented on our site
-- I
> >>>>>
> >>>>> don't
> >>>>>> see how it blocks anything.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Roman Shtykh
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018, 6:16:15 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev
<
> >>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There's still two issues with the submission.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The first one is that we're downloading "latest" version from
> preferred
> >>>>>> mirror but a specified version, such as "2.6", we're also going
to
> >>>>>
> >>>>> download
> >>>>>> from "slow" archive.apache.org/dist.
> >>>>>> That's a great limitation for this change, since most real
> deployments of
> >>>>>> Apache Ignite will have their Ignite version pegged to a specific
> >>>>>
> >>>>> release.
> >>>>>> But in this case there's no win in download speed.
> >>>>>> *In my opinion it is a blocker.*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The second one is that we can't download anything when we failed
to
> >>>>>> resolve "latest". My idea is that we should try and download
last
> known
> >>>>>> version in this case, which can be pushed to source from pom.xml,
> as we
> >>>>>> already do with URLs. So if you could not resolve "latest" you
will
> >>>>>> download 2.7.0.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Buuut, maybe it's not necessary, maybe we should just *discourage
> >>>>>> "latest"*, which is in my opinion almost always a bad idea.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> WDYT?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> вс, 9 сент. 2018 г. в 5:47, Roman Shtykh <rshtykh@yahoo.com>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Ilya,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry, missed that.
> >>>>>> Added now.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Roman Shtykh
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018, 6:16:58 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev
> <
> >>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The last of my requests still standing is that we should fall-back
> to
> >>>>>> single URL download in case of error with 'latest' version.
> Everything
> >>>>>
> >>>>> else
> >>>>>> looks good to me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can we do that? I'm really worried that Apache API will go sour.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> чт, 6 сент. 2018 г. в 8:56, Roman Shtykh <rshtykh@yahoo.com>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Ilya,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks again.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) Done.
> >>>>>> 2) Used catch() for latest version.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please see my comments on github.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Roman Shtykh
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 11:30:10 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya
> Kasnacheev <
> >>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've left a new wave of replies.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Basically, 1) let's keep DOWNLOAD_URL_PATTERN string value inlined
> so
> >>>>>> that it will work even if build process is broken (would be
useful
> for
> >>>>>
> >>>>> e.g.
> >>>>>> developing out of IDE)
> >>>>>> And also I urge you to catch() around new fragile Apache JSON
API
> >>>>>> resolving, and download the 'current' version instead, as defined
by
> >>>>>> ignite-mesos version.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is because this module is not under continuouos scrutiny
so
> extra
> >>>>>> care should be applied.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> вт, 4 сент. 2018 г. в 13:42, Roman Shtykh <rshtykh@yahoo.com>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks, Ilya!
> >>>>>> I will check your comments, and discuss it at JIRA.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Roman Shtykh
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018, 7:17:53 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev
<
> >>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> IGNITE-9408 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9408>
> looks
> >>>>>> good to me and may be merged right away.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> IGNITE-9388 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9388>
> needs
> >>>>>> more work in my opinion, I have commented the PR. I also advice
> having
> >>>>>
> >>>>> test
> >>>>>> for this functionality.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> вт, 4 сент. 2018 г. в 6:52, Roman Shtykh <rshtykh@yahoo.com.invalid
> >:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>> I would like Mesos integration update be included in the upcoming
> >>>>>> release.Can anyone review prs for the following issues?
> >>>>>> IGNITE-9388: mesos IgniteProvider tries to access obsolete
> ignite.run or
> >>>>>> download from slow archiveIGNITE-9408: Update mesos version
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Roman Shtykh
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   On Thursday, August 30, 2018, 9:25:43 p.m. GMT+9, Vyacheslav
> Daradur
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <
> >>>>>> daradurvs@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Igniters!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm working on the following Service Grid tasks:
> >>>>>> - IGNITE-8361 Use discovery messages for service deployment
> >>>>>> - IGNITE-8362 Collect service deployment results asynchronously
on
> >>>>>> coordinator
> >>>>>> - IGNITE-8363 Handle topology changes during service deployment
> >>>>>> - IGNITE-8364 Propagate deployed services to joining nodes
> >>>>>> - IGNITE-8365 Introduce service failure events
> >>>>>> - IGNITE-3392 Propagate service deployment results from assigned
> nodes
> >>>>>> to initiator
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let's call them *phase 1* because the should be implemented
together
> >>>>>> (atomically).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I do my best to finish phase 1 for including to 2.7 release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But I'm not sure that the solution will be fully completed till
the
> >>>>>> beginning of October.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 7:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhikov@apache.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hell, Yakov
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm ok with your proposal.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>      * Scope freeze - September 17 - We should have a full
list of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> tickets for 2.7 here.
> >>>>>>>      * Code freeze - October 01 - We should merge all 2.7
tickets
> to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> master here.
> >>>>>>>      * Vote on RC1 - October 11.
> >>>>>>>      * Vote on release - October 15.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> В Ср, 29/08/2018 в 12:39 +0300, Yakov Zhdanov пишет:
> >>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think we should have 2 weeks after code freeze which
by the way
> may
> >>>>>>>> include RC1 voting stage. This way I would like us to
agree that
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>> candidate should be sent to vote on Oct, 11th and we
can release
> on
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Oct,
> >>>>>>>> 15th.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --Yakov
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >>>>>>
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message